Skip to main content
Glama

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 7,125 across 1875 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.
prefer_toolNoRun this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / prefer_tool
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Run this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "question": "What was Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue?"
      +  }
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for question.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for question.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases."New value: +"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: the cost premium, the exact return envelope including evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at, and all five refusal reasons. The grounding constraint ('uses ONLY what the tool result contains') is the key behavior and it's disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the mode and its distinction from the sibling, and every sentence carries information. The inline enumeration of both return shapes is dense but slightly over-detailed for prose that could be shortened while keeping the same signal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by documenting both the success envelope and the refusal envelope with named reasons. Combined with the cost note and routing caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and every alias plus prefer_tool is already documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only marginal parameter-level detail ('fills arguments from your question', unknown prefer_tool names are refused) that is largely duplicated by the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads') and spells out the two-stage behavior: route to the right tool among 7,125, then extract the answer from only the tool result. It also explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx, so the agent can pick it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on… must not invent facts') with concrete domains, and an explicit when-not/named alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). The tradeoff driving the choice — one extra LLM call — is stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.